|
I remember being surprised to see"Frodo Lives" graffiti as late as the early 90's when I moved out to Southern California for a few years.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Murgos posted:I remember being surprised to see"Frodo Lives" graffiti as late as the early 90's when I moved out to Southern California for a few years. It was all over Santa Cruz when I was a kid in the late eighties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Well, that's because Santa Cruz has been in the 60s since the 60s. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
While not at all likely due to the Tolkien estate's hatred towards Hollywood: does anyone think that a Silmarillion film is even plausible? I had a debate with a friend wherein I put forward it is entirely doable if you pass on some of the extraneous stuff. Movie 1: The theft of the jewels and the Noldor migration Movie 2: The story of Luthien Movie 3: The War of Wrath
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Beren and luthien is entirely filmable. Next is maybe the fall of Gondolin and Earendil. And next is maybe the tragedy of Feanor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
I feel like it would work best as an opera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I feel like it would work best as an opera. That's how the elves would have done it too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Don't forget that the Children of Hurin was complete enough that they republished it after the movies as a cash grab (I assume). That said, I think I read somewhere that WB only has rights to LOTR and the Hobbit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I feel like it would work best as an opera. Holy poo poo, you're actually right. Beren and Luthien would make a great opera. Which makes a certain amount of sense since large sections are a rewrite of the Orpheus myth. I don't think it would be a good film though just because it's even more poetic and evocative than the most poetic parts of LotR. It would take a far greater director than Jackson to do it justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
It would best be filmed as a drama rather than an action movie. Done well, though, and with good casting, it could be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
There is tons of action in beren and luthien.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
You couldn't do the whole Silmarillion as a movie or series of movies, it's just not cohesive enough. It's a history that includes stories and legends in it, not something with a narrative linking everything together. A long TV series might be really cool though if it was done well
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
It's been said before Silmarillion would be best done as a fantasia style animated anthology. Hell, the beginning of fantasia isn't so different from the creation of Arda. Maybe Beren and Luthien could be done like Peter and the Wolf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
The story in the silmarillion from approximately the awakening of the elves to the War of Wrath and the destruction of Beleriland is pretty linked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There is tons of action in beren and luthien. I agree. I just said I don't want an action movie in lieu of a drama. GoT has lots of
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I dont know how you would portray Morgoth though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:And then Frank dies of cancer two years after his wife does, leaving Dune 7 unwritten. And then Brian and Kevin embark on their prequel writing and miraculously find a horde of notes and Dune 7 outline that Frank didn't send off to the Fullerton Archive with the rest of his papers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Recursive Expanse posted:It's been said before Silmarillion would be best done as a fantasia style animated anthology. Hell, the beginning of fantasia isn't so different from the creation of Arda. You guys have all seen the awesome comic strip right? It would work very well to music.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
I really didn't like the style of those comics but that's just me
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
You nerds posted:Anyone care to settle the size dispute of the Peter Jackson? Content: anyone care to tell me why these films haven't been slapped with IP copyright injunctions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qINwCRM8acM
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Sorry for the derail, but did Frank actually send any notes related to Dune 7 to the archives, and are they publicly available? Because I've been going on the theory that the Dune 7 notes were either brief and sketchy or an outright fabrication, which Brian spun into a dozen books. People have gone through the Frank Herbert Archive at Cal State Fullerton and looked at everything. Lots of interesting stuff, but no Dune 7 notes. Its kinda inconvenient to search, you need to go to the CSF library during weekday hours to look around and the boxes aren't the best organized. Brian supposedly found the Dune 7 stuff years later (either a pile of notes or a couple of floppy disks, the story kinda shifts). Coincidentally, the notes were found right after KJA and Brian started their prequel project. Regardless, the consensus is that the notes were most likely very brief and certainly did not include the robot characters that Brian and KJA made up in order to write prequel books about. Since they were wholly made up decades after Frank died. Contrast to Christopher Tolkien's handling of the estate. /okay derail over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:People have gone through the Frank Herbert Archive at Cal State Fullerton and looked at everything. Lots of interesting stuff, but no Dune 7 notes. Its kinda inconvenient to search, you need to go to the CSF library during weekday hours to look around and the boxes aren't the best organized. I agree - I find the handling of the Dune IP to be very shady and suspect the notes to have been either ignored, next to nothing, or non-existent. I'd like to think that at least; because the B-rate Butlerian Jihad saga that pair spewed forth still give me shivers when I pick up Dune. Regarding Tolkien however - I find the other extreme to be rather disappointing as well. A lot of good could come from a Silmarillion movie or, now the more I think about it: an opera or play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
After seeing the last Hobbit movie, I'm happy that there aren't going to be any new Tolkien movies for a while.
Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:After seeing the last Hobbit movie, I'm happy that there aren't going to be any new Tolkien movies for a while. Yeah. And when's the last time you saw a modern opera or modern non-musical stage production? Source material is great, but the neither medium is in great shape right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:Yeah. That's a good question, and I don't remember, but I was a kid then. But I wish that everyone forgot Jackson's Tolkien for a few years. As a horrible Tolkien nerd I really liked to see those in the movie theater, but atm, I'd wish that the works would be laid aside for a few years, until someone else with a different view would do something else with the source material. Túrin's book would be p. much a ready work for someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
i81icu812 posted:Yeah. Several years ago I saw a modern opera about Richard Nixon's China trip. I couldn't tell you if it was good or not, but it was a strange experience to say the least. EDIT: Classic operas still do well. So I could totally see a LotR opera working.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:After seeing the last Hobbit movie, I'm happy that there aren't going to be any new Tolkien movies for a while. And such a tragedy considering how good the first trilogy was, and how amazing the Hobbit could have been with Del Toro directing. It feels like the same thing that happened to Lucas happened to Jackson. He just got to the point where he was given unlimited freedom and no one was around to tell him 'no.'
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Narzack posted:And such a tragedy considering how good the first trilogy was, and how amazing the Hobbit could have been with Del Toro directing. It feels like the same thing that happened to Lucas happened to Jackson. He just got to the point where he was given unlimited freedom and no one was around to tell him 'no.' Actually the Hobbit films were very good.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Instead of adding a token girl character they should have just cast half the existing characters as women. Half the dwarves in Thorins company! Corrupt Queen of Laketown! Dain: Angry old dwarflady with hammer! Bard the single mom! It'd be rad as hell and nerds would go absolutely rabid and I'm so bummed they didn't seize that opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually the Hobbit films were very good. There was a good, if not great, movie in there. It was just surrounded by seven hours of padding. You just can't stretch 300 pages of text into nine hours of film. I could read the whole book in less time than it would take to watch one of the three movies.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There was a good, if not great, movie in there. It was just surrounded by seven hours of padding. You just can't stretch 300 pages of text into nine hours of film. I could read the whole book in less time than it would take to watch one of the three movies. They didn't, they included a whole bunch of Appendices material in there too. It's also not a very strong complaint because the Hobbit is a very detail dense book, unlike most other books (Harry Potter et all) where you often have to cut details. If you had cut all 3 films to just the materials that were filmed and depicted in the book (so no Radagast or Necromancer but also no talking eagles) you would still get a 4 hour movie. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:09 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They didn't, they included a whole bunch of Appendices material in there too. Oh it's all authentic. It's just that it's all extraneous to Bilbo's story. We don't need to see the Necromancer fight. We don't need hours and hours of Elf Battle Action. We *really* didn't need Bilbo's discovery of the weak spot to be made pointless in favor of an extra hour or three of screentime for Manly Action Hero Bard With Real Bowfight Action. It all just smothers Bilbo's story. The Jackson films aren't "The Hobbit" anymore, they're just another fantasy action blockbuster. And I even *liked* a lot of the action scenes, especially in the third film. It was all quality filler, but it was still too much by far of a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
You're being far too kind to the action sequences. In the second film in particular, they're dull and interminable. I saw the third film recently and was pleasantly surprised; the second one turned me off of seeing the third in the theatre. But every second Alfrid was on screen was nails-on-chalkboard awful.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:You're being far too kind to the action sequences. In the second film in particular, they're dull and interminable. I skipped the second one in theaters and watched it at home while splaying a video game. The third one I saw in theater and the action scenes were overlong and often silly but they had a lot of really great moments, like the battle elk or the dwarven phalanxes. If I had seen that stuff when I was 13 I would have lost my poo poo right there in the theater. Unfortunately I'm no longer 13.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh it's all authentic. It's just that it's all extraneous to Bilbo's story. We don't need to see the Necromancer fight. We don't need hours and hours of Elf Battle Action. We *really* didn't need Bilbo's discovery of the weak spot to be made pointless in favor of an extra hour or three of screentime for Manly Action Hero Bard With Real Bowfight Action. The fundamental disagreement you have seems to be that it's "Bilbo's Story". What the films are trying to do is replicate the feeling of Lord of the Rings, which (books & films) were not just Frodo's story. It's ok if you don't like it for being less personal than the book, but it's important to realize that they weren't trying to make a personal story like the book. e: I should probably specify that there are personal moments in both LOTR and the Hobbit films, but we're not just dealing from one person's perspective, like we are (save for one chapter) in the Hobbit book. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:28 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The fundamental disagreement you have seems to be that it's "Bilbo's Story". What the films are trying to do is replicate the feeling of Lord of the Rings, which (books & films) were not just Frodo's story. Right. Ultimately they were trying to graft seven hours of Action Blockbuster onto a story that is the exact opposite of an action blockbuster. It just doesn't work. It's like trying to turn a housecat into a panther by tying steaks to its back with twine. Even if all the steaks are certified panther meat, end of the day, you don't have a panther, just a cat smothered under the weight of all that meat.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right. Ultimately they were trying to graft seven hours of Action Blockbuster onto a story that is the exact opposite of an action blockbuster. It just doesn't work. It's like trying to turn a housecat into a panther by tying steaks to its back with twine. That would be true if they primarily focused on Bilbo but Thorin was really the protagonist perspective for most of the films.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
The Hobbit movies were good but compared to the LOTR adaption they're pretty lackluster. I mean, did we really need a five minute sequence of Thorin swimming in imaginary gold? Conceptually it's a neat idea to showcase dragonsickness eating at him but in practice you realize it was an excuse to make LIQUID GOLD EFFECTS (that are still kinda weird because CGI hasn't gotten to the point where liquid is an easy thing to do.) The Hobbit is a good series but it's primary purpose is to push CGI and 3D filmmaking. Contrast LOTR where the effects and props were made to contribute to the narrative. I'm not antiCGI either, I just think in this case it was used for the wrong reasons and took over the purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
HIJK posted:The Hobbit movies were good but compared to the LOTR adaption they're pretty lackluster. I mean, did we really need a five minute sequence of Thorin swimming in imaginary gold? Conceptually it's a neat idea to showcase dragonsickness eating at him but in practice you realize it was an excuse to make LIQUID GOLD EFFECTS (that are still kinda weird because CGI hasn't gotten to the point where liquid is an easy thing to do.)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:Instead of adding a token girl character they should have just cast half the existing characters as women. Half the dwarves in Thorins company! Corrupt Queen of Laketown! Dain: Angry old dwarflady with hammer! Bard the single mom! It'd be rad as hell and nerds would go absolutely rabid and I'm so bummed they didn't seize that opportunity. My response was usually "Oh cool," if not passionately so. They usually then repeated it a couple of times, as if expecting me to go rabid. To one I even said, 'Look, I'm glad they're making the films inclusive and it isn't as if Jackson is somehow either defiling a sacred text, or preventing people from seeing the original. Are you asking for my thoughts or what?' Perhaps... that makes me the killjoy. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:48
|
|